[No. 39864.

 December 8, 1933]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee,  vs.  MARCELINO
VALENCIA, MELCHOR QUIJANO, and SOCORRO QUIJANÓ, defendants. MARCELINO
VALENCIA and SOCORRO QUIJANO, appellants.

1. CRIMINAL LAW; ARRAIGNMENT; PLEA OF GUILTY.—In a criminal prosecution for forgery,

the plea of guilty admits all the material allegations of the information, including that of
connivance with the authors of the forgery, which characterizes the crime defined by article 166
of the Revised Penal Code.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY GIVEN IN FAVOR OF CO-ACCUSED.—Although the general rule is,

that it is the prudent and advisable course to take additional evidence of the guilt of the accused
who pleaded guilty to the information, his testimony given in behalf of his co-accused can not
affect his criminal liability arising out of his plea.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. Rosauro, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
B. Francisco for appellants.
Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Appellants Marcelino Valencia and Socorro Quijano, together with Melchor Quijano, were
prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga under the following information:
"Que en o hacia el día 21 de marzo de 1933, en el Municipio de Mabalácat, Provincia de
Pampanga, Islas Filipinas, los referidos acusados, Marcelino Valencia, Melchor Quijano y
Socorro Quijano, confabulándose entre sí, de común acuerdo, ayudándose mutuamente y en
connivencia con los fabricantes de billetes de banco falsos, quienes hasta ahora no han sido
identificados, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente, expendieron e hicieron pasar un billete de
banco falsificado a sabiendas de que lo era, en la f orma y manera siguiente:
43

VOL. 59, DECEMBER 8, 1933 43

People vs. Valencia

se presentaron en la tienda de la Sra. Maria Morales y compraron efectos de su tienda, cuyo

valor es de P0.45 y para pagarlos entregaron un billete de banco falsificado de P10, No.
D261487D del Banco de las Islas Filipinas, haciéndolo pasar como legítimo y expedido por el
Banco de las Islas Filipinas, cuando que a ellos les constaba y les consta positivamente de que
era y es falsificado recibiendo de la citada Sra. María Morales como cambio la cantidad de
P9.55."
Upon arraignment, Marcelino Valencia pleaded guilty, while his two co-defendants pleaded
not guilty. After due trial, Melchor Quijano was acquitted. Marcelino Valencia was found
guilty of a violation of article 166, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer ten
years, eight months and one day of prisión mayor, with the accessories of the law, to pay a fine
of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-third of the costs.
Socorro Quijano was found guilty of a violation of article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, and
sentenced to four years, two months and one day of prisión correccional,with the accessories of
the law, and to pay, one-third of the costs.
The evidence shows that on the morning of March 21, 1933, appellants stopped their car in
front of a store belonging to Maria Morales and bought some cigarettes and corn beef, and
gave the seller a ten-peso bill. After receiving the change in the sum of P9.55, they hurriedly
left the store. This aroused the suspicion of the store owner who, upon examining the bill,
found it to be a counterfeit. Whereupon her brother Pedro Morales went in pursuit of
appellants. Meanwhile, appellants went to another store belonging to Eustaquia Suñga and
bought cigars and some cans of salmon, giving, in payment, another ten-peso counterfeit bill.
Upon receiving the change, they again hurriedly departed. They were, however, overtaken by
Pedro Morales and, at his instance, were detained by the authorities. On this appeal, two
questions are raised, one relates to the qualification of the crime committed by Marcelino,
while
44

44 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Valencia

the other, to the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction of Socorro.

As to the first question, counsel contends that article 168 of the Revised Penal Code should
be applied, instead of article 166, alleging that no evidence was presented that appellant
Marcelino was in connivance with the counterfeiters or forgers when he passed the counterfeit
bills. This contention is groundless, since, by his plea of guilty, Marcelino admitted all the
material allegations of the information, including that of connivance with the authors of the
forgery, which characterizes the crime defined by article 166 of the Revised Penal Code. (U.
S. vs.Burlado, 42 Phil., 72, 74; U. S. vs. Barba, 29 Phil., 206; U. S. vs. Tamarra, 21 Phil., 143.)
His testimony at the trial of, and as witness for, his co-appellant, could not aff ect the legal
consequences of his plea.
As to the second question, counsel contends that Socorro did not know anything about the
counterfeit bills, but an examination of the evidence presented in this case convinces us to the
contrary, and so we are not disposed to interfere with the finding of the trial court on this
point.
The crime committed by Marcelino Valencia falls within the purview of article 166, case 2,
of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty prescribed is  prisión mayor  in its maximum degree
and a fine not to exceed P5,000. There being present the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, the penalty should be imposed in its
minimum period. Under the provisions of Act No. 4103 of the Philippine Legislature,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment the minimum of which shall not be less than the minimum of the penalty next
lower in degree to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, and the maximum shall be that
which may be properly imposed, in view of the attending circumstances. Consequently, the
appellant Marcelino Valencia is hereby sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of from
eight
45

VOL. 59, DECEMBER 8, 1933 45

Evangelista vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan

years and one day to ten years and eight months. The fine imposed by the lower court should
be without any subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 39, rule 3, of the Revised Penal
Code.
The crime committed by Socorro Quijano falls under article 168 of the Revised Penal Code,
and the penalty prescribed is prisión mayor in its medium degree, which should be applied in
its medium period, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the
commission of the crime. Pursuant to the provisions of said Act No. 4103, she is hereby
sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of from six years and one day to nine years and
four months. She is also sentenced to pay a fine of P100, without any subsidiary
imprisonment. (Article 168, in relation with article 166, case 2, and article 39, rule 3, of the
Revised Penal Code.)
Modified as above indicated, the judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellants. So
ordered.

Street, Vickers, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified.